For clarification, backflows are NOT inspected internally in cross connection programs.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]> wrote: > the next edition has been cleaned-up on this issue. > > _______________________________________________________________ 25-271 Log > #CP15 Final Action: Accept > (13.6.2.1, 13.6.2.2 (New)) > _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: > Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based > Systems, > > Recommendation: Revise 13.6.2.1 to read as follows: > 13.6.2.1 All backflow preventers installed in fire protection system piping > shall be exercised annually by conducting a forward flow test at a minimum > flow rate of the system design. > Add new 13.6.2.2 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: > 13.6.2.2 Where hydrants or inside hose stations are located downstream of the > backflow preventer, the forward flow test shall include hose stream demand. > Substantiation: This change was needed to better reflect that the backflow > preventer is not a precise test whereby the flow through it must be measured > but effort to exercise the device at flows as near as possible to the system > demand. > Committee Meeting Action: Accept > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 32 Negative: 1 > Explanation of Negative: > > RAY, R.: This proposal should have been accepted in principle: the wording > “at a minimum flow rate” is confusing and should be reworded. > _______________________________________________________________ 25-272 Log > #121 Final Action: Accept > > (13.6.2.1.1) > > _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: > Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. Recommendation: > Delete the following text: > > 13.6.2.1.1 For backflow preventers sized 2 in. (50 mm) and under, the forward > flow test shall be acceptable to conduct without measuring flow, where the > test outlet is of a size to flow the system demand. > Substantiation: This section implies that a measured flow is required for > Backflow preventers (BFP) larger than 2 in when nothing in 13.6.2.1 states > such a requirement. There are other means to identify that the system demand > is flowing through the BFP as discussed in A.13.6.2.1 It also needs to be > kept in mind that we are simply exercising the BFP to ensure it will fully > open at approximately the system demand. A high degree of accuracy regarding > the volume of water is not warranted. Additionally, BFP’s are subjected to an > annual internal inspection as part of the cross connection protection > program. Committee Meeting Action: Accept > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33 > > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Dwight Havens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Then they ought to say that in the code language. >> >> Dwight >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: John Denhardt <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:07 PM >> Subject: RE: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test >> >> >> While I do disagree to some extent of what the NFPA 25 committee has done, >> Roland statement is correct. I have had numerous discussions with NFPA 25 >> committee members where they have stated the intent was to exercise the >> device at near system demand. The key word to me was "Exercise". >> >> John >> >> John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE >> Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated >> 5113 Berwyn Road >> College Park, Maryland 20740 >> Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 >> Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 >> FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest >> Wilson >> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:42 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test >> >> Here is an email on this topic that Roland addressed in the past: >> >> Im not going to say it was one of those casual assumptions that all >> systems are calculated nor that all risers have placards. The main >> thing to keep in mind that the intent is simply to fully EXERCISE the >> BFP at what os expected to be the system demand. If no data >> available, a discussion with the AHJ is warranted. As for benchmarks, >> only the flow is pertinent and pressure is irrelevant. >> >> Roland >> >> On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Matthew J. Willis wrote: >> >>>> >>>> On a more important matter: If a system was retrofitted with a >>>> backflow, >>> and >>>> there is no hydraulic calc plaque attached to the riser, and NFPA >>>> requires >>>> forward flow testing of backflows, how can you conduct the test >>>> without a >>>> benchmark to test against? >>>> >>>> What is the recommended practice in this scenario? >>>> Forest Wilson >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Then subjective good flow demonstrates a working valve? If so all the >>> numbers bantered around are pretty meaningless. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Forest Wilson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> No. >>>> The intent is not to pitot the output but to exercise the valve. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Forest. What were you flowing to discover these failures? Main drain or >>>>> some special test header? Would a sign with the data requested by the >>>>> customer that started this thread have had any utility in helping you >>>>> discover the problem? >>>>> >>>>> Then back to that perennial question of what's a "full flow " test and >>>> how >>>>> do you do one? I think Roland said the intent was to flow an equivalent >>>> to >>>>> the design discharge criteria. How do you do this? Do we run a pitot >>>>> somewhere on the system? Do we catch and measure discharge? If so, from >>>>> where? How do we arrange the test port(s)? Do we flow the design area or >>>>> simulate it elsewhere? Do we need results of at least or better flow or >>>>> right on the money flow? If not either of those how do we judge? >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't the hydraulic data plate note the required psi per the calcs at >>>> the >>>>> BOR and the static? Isn't the difference the residual drop at that point >>>>> relative to the design area? Wouldn't a main drain with good flow at a >>>> psi >>>>> around the BOR rating, and returning to close to the noted static when >>>>> terminated suggest a fully open valve, or an adequately open valve if the >>>>> UG is oversized? In the latter case the partially open valve is >>>> equivalent >>>>> to fully open for the system I just described. Am I missing something >>>> here? >>>>> An erroneous a priori? My understanding of hydraulics wrong? Main drains >>>>> are too small to simulate the result of all design area heads flowing as >>>>> the water passes through the BOR? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Forest Wilson <[email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I still have the check valve from a Ames that failed to open. >>>>>> It was jammed shut, discovered when I was called out because they >>>> couldn't >>>>>> do the fire pump test. >>>>>> >>>>>> In another case, I tested a backflow and it failed (on a Best Buy >>>> store). >>>>>> I opened the valve up and the check was damaged, would only open a >>>> third. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Worked well for plumbing and process piping applications as they are >>>>>>> constantly being exercised. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Dwight Havens <[email protected] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do remember the ones with the rods in the center of the valve being >>>>>>>> particularly poor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dwight >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:25 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the mid-nineties you have the early Ames models purpose built for >>>>>>>> sprinklers readily available, but many units being installed are still >>>>>> not >>>>>>>> listed for fire service as many jurisdictions don't consider the fire >>>>>> line >>>>>>>> a fire line until after the backflow, and a n on-listed device is >>>>>> cheaper >>>>>>>> than a listed one. Plus many go back to the seventies and many used >>>>>> weights >>>>>>>> instead of springs and complicated lever systems for joining the >>>>>> clappers >>>>>>>> and weights. Wish I could post a picture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dwight Havens <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Give me a time frame. My best recollection is the mid '90's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dwight >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:12 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Were these the plumbing type before fire service listed devices >>>>>> existed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dwight Havens < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, and yes. The original proposal was based on observed >>>>>>>> failures >>>>>>>>>> of BFPAs to operate properly during main drain testing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Glendale, AZ public library specifically comes to mind. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dwight >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> From: Todd Williams <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:32 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Has there ever been an instance of system failure due to the >>>> backflow >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> properly opening? How about detection of a BFP problem during a full >>>>>>>> flow >>>>>>>>>> test. How about something subsequent to the initial acceptance? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Todd G Williams, PE >>>>>>>>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>>>>>>>>> Stonington, CT >>>>>>>>>> 860-535-2080 >>>>>>>>>> www.fpdc.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Ron Greenman >>>>>>>>> Instructor >>>>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology >>>>>>>>> Bates Technical College >>>>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>>>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 253.680.7346 >>>>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Member: >>>>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>>>>>>> Bacon, >>>>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Ron Greenman >>>>>>>> Instructor >>>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology >>>>>>>> Bates Technical College >>>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 253.680.7346 >>>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Member: >>>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>>>>> Bacon, >>>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ron Greenman >>>>>>> Instructor >>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology >>>>>>> Bates Technical College >>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 253.680.7346 >>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Member: >>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>>>>> Bacon, >>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ron Greenman >>>>> Instructor >>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology >>>>> Bates Technical College >>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>>>> >>>>> 253.680.7346 >>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>>>> >>>>> Member: >>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>>>> >>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>>> Bacon, >>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Greenman >>> Instructor >>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology >>> Bates Technical College >>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>> >>> 253.680.7346 >>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>> >>> Member: >>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>> >>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, >>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
